25. Professer Bernhandi
N0M
OVERSEAS DAILY MAIL,
Northoliffe House, E.C.
AuG 193
Date—
SCHNITZLER PLAY
Personally, I never believe
that there is no room in the
London theatre in midsummer
for anything which is not fun¬
damentally trivial.
Whether I am right or
wrong about this, a good play
is a good play at any season of
the year, and I am positive
about the goodness of Arthur
Schnitzler's Professor Bern¬
hardi.“
This play is now to be seen
at the Phcenix Theatre. There
is abundant and stimulating
entertainment in this bril¬
liantly told tale of the compler
consequences that followed
the action of a Jewish docter
in forbidding, for the kindest
of motives, a priest from ad¬
ministering extreme unction
to a dying girl patient of his.
Abraham Sofaer puts up a
memorable performance as the
Jewish doctor, backed up by
excellent portraits created by
Earle Grey, John Garside,
Noel Howlett, Ronald Adam,
and Alan Wheatley.
Cutting from—
SgWaga
WORTT
IAENS OFTR
2 AUG. 1936
Date of (Ssue
The Bor Office
is the Test
DROFESSOR BERNHARDI“ promises
to become a popular success at the
Phoenix. At each performance
last week the takings were practically
doubled, and scores of people informed
the box-office that they were paying al
second visit to the play.
Similarly,“ The Frog“ is still break¬
ing records at the Princes. It paid off
high production expenses in the first
seven ’weeks, and has been averaging
41,000 a week profit for some time now.
The play threatens to run till Christ¬
mas on library deals alone.
box 31/5
1
—
EXTRACT FROM
Obeerer
AUG. 1334
Phoenix.
PROFESSOR BERNHARDI.
By Arthur Schnitzler.
This play, which has been removed
from the Embassy tothe Phoenix, is a
singular piece, to my mind, for Schnitzler
to have written; for he is known chiefly
as the author of cynical comedies, where¬
as Professor Bernhardi“ is a Gals¬
worthy work, almost a piece of propa¬
ganda, naive, rather than cynical. But
Schnitzler, it seems, had several sides to
his authorship, and this is one of them.
The play, which is dully, translated,
describes a conflict between Jews and
Gentiles in a hospital in terms that are, I
think, trivial. Indeed, the statement
that this is a conflict between Jews and
Gentiles is almost a mis-statement, and it
would be more accurate to say that the
conflict is between orthodoxy and hetero¬
doxy, between the doctor and the priest,
between science and religion. But how
stupidly the conflict is caused by Bern¬
hardi, who is a humourless prig, how hard
he makes it for the Gentiles to be concilia¬
tory. Bernhardi is director of a clinic
which lives on donations. Its success is,
therefore, largely dependent on the favour
of the charitable public. Among the
patients is a girl suffering from the effects
of abortion. This girl, unaware of her
A
danger, is on the point of death.
priest appears and, on learning that death
is imminent, attempts to enter the ward
to give the girl the last rites of her
Church, but Bernhardi forbids him to do
so on the ground that it is his duty to
make his patient’s last hour happy. She
must not be made miserable by the un¬
expected announcement that she will
probably be dead in a few minutes.
find myself unable to sympathise with
Bernhardi’s point of view, which is sloppy
in the extreme, and might very reason¬
ably be resented by the patient whose
The
happiness he presumes to secure.
girl was a Catholic, and as such would
have preferred to die having received#
Extreme Unction than to die without it.
Bernhardi took an unpardonable liberty in
preventing her priest from having access
to her, a fact which does not appear to
have presented itself to Schnitzler’s mind.
Bernhardi’s disbelief in the virtue of
Extreme Unction is immaterial, and only
afanatic without vestige of common sense
would have acted as he did, involving his
Telinic in danger of dissolution. One’s feel¬
ing that he behaves like an impertinent
fool robs the rest of the play of some of
its vitality. There need not have been
any of this trouble if Bernhardi had not
been a humourless prig, a wilful ass, an
imposer of his opinions on other people.
Nevertheless, the play is immensely inter¬
esting, and is uncommonly well acted bva
nearly all-male cast. which includes Mr.
Abraham Sofaer, Mr. Earle Gray, Mr.
John Garside, and Mr. Ronald Adams. I
cordially recommend it.
Sr. JoHN ERVINE.
4
25
100
80
N0M
OVERSEAS DAILY MAIL,
Northoliffe House, E.C.
AuG 193
Date—
SCHNITZLER PLAY
Personally, I never believe
that there is no room in the
London theatre in midsummer
for anything which is not fun¬
damentally trivial.
Whether I am right or
wrong about this, a good play
is a good play at any season of
the year, and I am positive
about the goodness of Arthur
Schnitzler's Professor Bern¬
hardi.“
This play is now to be seen
at the Phcenix Theatre. There
is abundant and stimulating
entertainment in this bril¬
liantly told tale of the compler
consequences that followed
the action of a Jewish docter
in forbidding, for the kindest
of motives, a priest from ad¬
ministering extreme unction
to a dying girl patient of his.
Abraham Sofaer puts up a
memorable performance as the
Jewish doctor, backed up by
excellent portraits created by
Earle Grey, John Garside,
Noel Howlett, Ronald Adam,
and Alan Wheatley.
Cutting from—
SgWaga
WORTT
IAENS OFTR
2 AUG. 1936
Date of (Ssue
The Bor Office
is the Test
DROFESSOR BERNHARDI“ promises
to become a popular success at the
Phoenix. At each performance
last week the takings were practically
doubled, and scores of people informed
the box-office that they were paying al
second visit to the play.
Similarly,“ The Frog“ is still break¬
ing records at the Princes. It paid off
high production expenses in the first
seven ’weeks, and has been averaging
41,000 a week profit for some time now.
The play threatens to run till Christ¬
mas on library deals alone.
box 31/5
1
—
EXTRACT FROM
Obeerer
AUG. 1334
Phoenix.
PROFESSOR BERNHARDI.
By Arthur Schnitzler.
This play, which has been removed
from the Embassy tothe Phoenix, is a
singular piece, to my mind, for Schnitzler
to have written; for he is known chiefly
as the author of cynical comedies, where¬
as Professor Bernhardi“ is a Gals¬
worthy work, almost a piece of propa¬
ganda, naive, rather than cynical. But
Schnitzler, it seems, had several sides to
his authorship, and this is one of them.
The play, which is dully, translated,
describes a conflict between Jews and
Gentiles in a hospital in terms that are, I
think, trivial. Indeed, the statement
that this is a conflict between Jews and
Gentiles is almost a mis-statement, and it
would be more accurate to say that the
conflict is between orthodoxy and hetero¬
doxy, between the doctor and the priest,
between science and religion. But how
stupidly the conflict is caused by Bern¬
hardi, who is a humourless prig, how hard
he makes it for the Gentiles to be concilia¬
tory. Bernhardi is director of a clinic
which lives on donations. Its success is,
therefore, largely dependent on the favour
of the charitable public. Among the
patients is a girl suffering from the effects
of abortion. This girl, unaware of her
A
danger, is on the point of death.
priest appears and, on learning that death
is imminent, attempts to enter the ward
to give the girl the last rites of her
Church, but Bernhardi forbids him to do
so on the ground that it is his duty to
make his patient’s last hour happy. She
must not be made miserable by the un¬
expected announcement that she will
probably be dead in a few minutes.
find myself unable to sympathise with
Bernhardi’s point of view, which is sloppy
in the extreme, and might very reason¬
ably be resented by the patient whose
The
happiness he presumes to secure.
girl was a Catholic, and as such would
have preferred to die having received#
Extreme Unction than to die without it.
Bernhardi took an unpardonable liberty in
preventing her priest from having access
to her, a fact which does not appear to
have presented itself to Schnitzler’s mind.
Bernhardi’s disbelief in the virtue of
Extreme Unction is immaterial, and only
afanatic without vestige of common sense
would have acted as he did, involving his
Telinic in danger of dissolution. One’s feel¬
ing that he behaves like an impertinent
fool robs the rest of the play of some of
its vitality. There need not have been
any of this trouble if Bernhardi had not
been a humourless prig, a wilful ass, an
imposer of his opinions on other people.
Nevertheless, the play is immensely inter¬
esting, and is uncommonly well acted bva
nearly all-male cast. which includes Mr.
Abraham Sofaer, Mr. Earle Gray, Mr.
John Garside, and Mr. Ronald Adams. I
cordially recommend it.
Sr. JoHN ERVINE.
4
25
100
80